Individuals in today's society operate in mobile environments, whether walking with a family through an airport or walking with classmates on a school outing. Young children, and even certain older individuals, sometimes need extra care, but they are encouraged to participate in all aspects of life in a safe and fulfilling manner. These individuals, referred to herein as “dependent individuals” (e.g., toddlers, children who need supervision, people with disabilities, and senior citizens), are often accompanied by parents or caregivers who maintain control of the dependent individual's movements. The term “dependent individuals” is descriptive of any individual who desires to use the guide system described herein and is not limiting of the invention. Similarly, terms such as parent, caregiver, supervisory individual, and the like are used in their broadest sense in this case and are not limiting of the scope of the claims.
There was a time when holding hands with a caregiver was the only way to limit the range in which a dependent individual moved. As time has progressed and life has become more complicated, caregivers need to keep up with dependent individuals in a hands free manner. For example, while shopping, a parent needs to control the free range of a child and simultaneously pick up items for purchase or carry shopping bags. In an airport, a caregiver needs to maintain proximity with a dependent individual while also carrying luggage from one terminal to the next. Hands free control of a dependent individual has, therefore, been a worthy goal for quite some time but has yet to be realized in a convenient way.
As noted above, many caregivers wish to constrict the movements of their young children and other individuals during certain activities, such as airport travel, walking along busy streets, shopping, or attending large gatherings such as concerts, festivals, parades, and the like. A common fear among parents and caregivers is that of losing the dependent individual in a crowd or unintentionally allowing the dependent individual to move into a dangerous situation. Efforts to address these fears are set forth in prior patents and publications that are publicly available. The prior art shows leash and harness systems used to constrain the motion of these dependent individuals, but leash and harness systems have a number of disadvantages. Notably, leash and harness systems are often considered to be socially unacceptable because people consider them to be appropriate only for animals and not for people. Leash and harness systems for dependent individuals also require the caregiver or parent to hold on to leads or lines. Requiring a parent or caregiver to use their hands to control the dependent individual defeats the goal of allowing hands-free movement with the assurance that the dependent individual will not stray outside a known boundary.
The prior art shows certain leash and harness systems that individuals use to maintain control over the range in which a dependent individual moves about a caregiver. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 4,688,564 (Kelly 1987) discloses a leash system that uses cuffs attached by a flexible tether to both a child and an adult. This kind of tethering system, however, gives an appearance of a handcuff arrangement that has a punitive image that is generally negative to the casual observer. Children and dependent adults may also dislike such blatant forms of constriction and are apt to refuse wearing a binding cuff about their person.
The prior art is replete with cuff assemblies that wrap around a wrist or other body part of both the dependent individual and the caregiver. These cuffs are most often adjustable in size to fit both parties and are connected by a leash or cord that extends between the cuffs. See U.S. Pat. No. 4,751,896 (Miley 1988); U.S. Pat. No. 4,765,279 (Klickstein 1988); U.S. Design Pat. No. D458,414 (Major 2002). In a different embodiment of the same idea, the cuffs are connected by an elastic line that stretches to a certain extent and increases the range of motion of the dependent individual. See U.S. Pat. No. 4,745,883 (Baggetta 1988).
As noted above, one resolution to the problem of controlling the mobility of a dependent individual lies in the use of a traditional harness. The harness typically fits about the torso of the dependent individual and often includes shoulder straps or belts that cross over in the front or the back. The dependent individual wears the harness on his torso, and an extendable lead connects to another individual (e.g., a parent or a caregiver). The harness system is extremely noticeable to those around the dependent individual. Accordingly, as children get older, they are less inclined to agree to wearing a harness because the children feel that it is babyish or embarrassing. Older individuals also dislike harnesses because they are hard to fit properly (requiring multiple belt adjustments), or the individuals feel conspicuous in such a piece of equipment. A standard harness is set forth in U.S. Pat. No. 5,325,818 (Leach 1994). Systems that use such a harness with extendible leashes and wrist cuffs for the caregiver or parent are shown in U.S. Pat. No. 4,666,017 (Zimmerman 1987) and U.S. Pat. No. 5,069,168 (Roberson 1991). Instead of the parent or caregiver connecting to the harness assembly by a wrist cuff, certain other designs utilize waist belts for connecting the harness to the care giver. See U.S. Pat. No. 4,667,624 (Smith 1987) and U.S. Design Pat. No. D383,256 (Hampton 1997).
In a different take on the harness and leash concept, the prior art shows numerous safety tethers that use belts that fit around the waist of the dependent individual and the parent or caregiver. See U.S. Pat. No. 5,848,576 (Colaianni 1998). The problems with this embodiment include the discomfort of another belt and the possibility of injury—if one person stumbles or falls, both are likely to lose their footing with a force pulling at their respective waistlines. U.S. Pat. No. 5,699,555 (Schunter 1997) includes a wrist band and waist band combination that focuses on attaching one end of the tether to a dependent individual's waist and the other end of the tether to a caregiver's wrist band. Still, the overall problem lies in comfort, safety, and allowing a caregiver hands free movement.
The problem of monitoring and maintaining a safe range of motion for dependent individuals is also present in classroom situations. Preschools and younger grades for elementary students often desire to take the children on class trips or at least for a walk outside.
One problem to note in all of these prior art tether or rope systems is that none of them is appealing to the dependent individual being led. While a dependent individual may acknowledge a desire to stay with the caregiver or parent, doing so upon their own volition is key to smooth travel. One goal of this invention, therefore, is to make the tethering or guiding system desirable to the individual being guided. The prior art is generally void of guiding systems that actually encourage a dependent individual to use and engage a tethering arrangement. The Tonuzi '176 patent and the Boutin '058 patent, both noted above, incorporate animal shapes into parts of their group tether systems, but they give little indication of the purpose behind such shapes. U.S. Pat. No. 5,638,772 (Kaufmann, 1997), using a waist belt at both ends of a retractable tether, adds a decorative toy to both ends of the tether to hide the attachment points and hardware about each individual's waist. Kaufmann is silent, however, on the issue of whether the decorative toy affects the dependent individual's attitude toward using the tether.
The prior art shows a need, therefore, for a guide system or tether, that is appealing to the dependent individual and operates in a way that allows the caregiver or parent to control movement in a convenient, acceptable, and hands-free way.